In the event that the obligation to return the leased object is lost and the leased object is not fulfilled, the burden of proof for the cause attributable

Where a lessee’s obligation to return leased object becomes impossible, if the lessee is exempted from liability for damages due to nonperformance, he/she shall be responsible to prove that the impossibility of performance is not attributable to the lessee’s cause, and even if the cause of the fire is unknown in cases where the leased object was destroyed due to fire, the lessee shall prove that he/she has fulfilled his/her duty of due care to preserve the leased building.

Articles 390 and 618 of the Civil Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 355, Nov. 24, 1987) (Law No. 1982, Nov. 24, 1987) (Law No. 19888, Nov. 24, 1987)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellant Mayang, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na53571 delivered on April 1, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

If the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object becomes impossible and the lessee is liable for damages due to nonperformance, it shall be proved that the nonperformance was not attributable to the lessee. If the leased object was destroyed by fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, it shall be proved that the lessee fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2416, Apr. 9, 1985; 87Meu1575, Nov. 24, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the whole building of this case was destroyed by fire in the above factory while the defendant operated the tape manufacturing factory in the name of 25 square meters among the building of this case owned by the plaintiff from the plaintiff and operated the tape manufacturing factory of this case by leasing 25 square meters among the building of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff, and held that the defendant is liable for damages due to the lawsuit of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased building of this case. Upon examining the evidence established by the records, the court below's above fact-finding is justified and its judgment is just in accordance with the above opinion of the party members, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)